From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 2 - August 1991

The ego(1) is a concept that many bandy
around, usually with a negative connotation, but often without a clear
definition. It's psychoanalytical definitions, from which the term
originated, don't help much in identifying it or its functions. For
those interested, the psychoanalytical definition is given below.
However, most of us witnessed the development of this function in
the church. For the ego was set up to perform a vital function, to
relay the content of those key aspects of existence with which
we interact to us in our physical form.

For example, someone says something to us such as; 'I didn't
quite get what you said'. The content was simply that the person
did not fully comprehend what was said. The form was an in ARC
vibration
and modulation of air waves on a frequency which our receptors could
receive. The context was simply that the person sought more
understanding
of what we intended. The ego's job was to relay this content
and not in any way alter or add to the form or context. If it did
this, and accurately relayed only the content, it served as a vitally
needed and perfect messenger. However, if it had been trained or taken
on the hat of altering the context so that any questioning or
unfavorable
response indicated either stupidity on the part of the receiver, or
an undermining of the capability of the originator, then it had taken
over function of the 'determining context'. If it had worn
the 'correct hat' it would not have altered or added any value
judgements
as to either form or context.

As the church expanded, and a wide range of inputs to monitor
broad range of activities was needed, the founder presumably realized
that he needed reliable messengers. Perhaps his reason for selecting
people who were quite young, some barely in their teens, and who may
not have formed as many judgements and opinions, was that they would
be more likely to relay the content of communication to and
from him without adding to or altering the form or context.
Determining the form and context was his hat.

However, through their mutual interaction, the young messengers
learned that he reacted unfavorably to information that didn't
reflect what he wanted to hear such as undesired outcomes, for which
he did not want to be responsible. So, the messengers began to take
over the function of supplying more and more of the form and context.
A theta message from a C/S that had observed that a procedure did
not appear to be producing consistent results, might reach the
founder in the form of derogatory tone with the context that
the C/S was a squirrel, and was trying to undermine the tech. A
message
concerning the implementing of a policy to attack and harass anyone
who questioned the organization, conveying that it had not worked
out, might have been relayed that the person who had tried to
implement
it must be an S.P. and was disloyal. In this process of the founder
abdicating power, an organizational negative ego was formed. It was
not trained to determine the form and context of messages.
The correct action to remedy this wasn't to destroy the ego function
but restrict it to the hat it could wear, relaying content. After
all teenage messengers were not always experienced or wise enough
to determine the context of vital matters affecting the organization
and the technology.

We all have and need egos. Our connection with the various
aspects of ourselves, our unconscious, our subconscious, our soul
and God comes to us through various forms of awarenesses and
transformation
of energies from one universe to another. To the degree that we are
unwilling to accept the raw data or awarenesses as they become
available,
but instead endeavor to protect or enhance some preconceived image
of ourselves, we give our power to a negative ego function. Once
given,
even though it's unable to perform the function, it will fight to
maintain it, and at the same time, resent you giving it a hat it isn't
equipped to wear.

You might say that all intolerance is based on the surrender
of power to a negative ego function in an attempt to protect an image.
If so, there's a lot of work to be done, isn't there?

(1)Psychoanalytic definition of ego: that part of the
psyche which is conscious, experiencing, and reacting to the outside
world, and thus acting as mediator between the id's unconscious,
primitive
impulses and society's expectations. The id is defined as that part
of the psyche, constituting the unconscious, which is the source of
instinctual and libidinal energies.